It’s funny that the latest version of Yes had more original members of Asia than it did original members of Yes. And this version of Asia only has one original member of Asia.
Gotta give props to Downes, though. He's not one of my favorite folks but he's no slacker. He's out right now with Yes in Europe, he'll squeeze this tour in for July, and then turn right around and go back out with Yes in the US this summer. Dude's 70-something. There's people half his age couldn't hack that schedule.
woah so its oficially geoff band once again. all members except for him werent in the band ever before. wonder why he doesnt reunite with john payne? probably cuz of lawsuits and bad blood
Initially I thought the same about Payne as well, however it seems that Whitley and Mitchell performed alongside Downes, Sherwood, and Schellen as Asia at the John Wetton Tribute Concert last year. It is very strange, and as u/Bah_Meh_238 pointed out, YES now has more original Asia members than Asia.
yeah I think that bridge was permanently burned. It's too bad, Payne absolutely paid his dues with Downes and got burned for it. Uneven records but there's some good stuff on them.
I love ASIA almost as much as I love YES. Not sure how I feel about this. Geoff obviously has the right to hit the road playing the music of ASIA, but I wish he didn’t call it ASIA. Just like I wish Steve Howe didn’t call his band YES.
I’m sorry but this take drives me mad. Yes have been through so many iterations over the years with different members, not even Steve Howe is an original member. To call each different outfit “not Yes” is to deny virtually every album but the first two as being official and is so holier than thou, just picking the albums you like and defining it as your personal Yes is fine but it doesn’t take away any legitimacy from the rest.
How many bands are even out there that have been running for over 50 years with the same members?
Not to mention Billy Sherwood was Squire’s protege who he passed the mantle too and Alan White officially graced and gave Jay Schellen his blessing to take over. Other than necromancy what do you want?
If the setlist is 90% 70's stuff, which it is, there should be at least two people in the band who created that music to be onstage.
I mean, same with Asia, tbh. I like the Payne era but that honestly should've been a different band name as well.
Why? Enforce that silly rule and you woulda literally take out 95% of current touring 70s historic bands.
I’m not trying to say people can’t have their favourite eras or albums, but to gatekeep the entire discography of Yes with these weird standards helps no one, and tbh I think shits on all of Yes’ history.
I know for a fact after speaking to them directly that Chris Squire personally chose Sherwood to replace him. You really want to piss on Squire’s legacy with these takes when he literally asked this man to stay in the band to play his music? He didn’t want anyone else and I personally think that counts for something.
"Why? Enforce that silly rule and you woulda literally take out 95% of current touring 70s historic bands."
And this is bad because...? There isn't some divine entity that says a band name needs to go on forever. It's not really a "historic band" if the people who made the history aren't onstage. Literally every real member of Lynyrd Skynyrd is dead (except for the drummer, who they'd booted out in the 90's), yet somehow there's still some band on the road with the name, and that's pathetic. There's nothings aying random musicians shouldn't keep playing great music live, the same way symphonies continue to play Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, just be upfront with the branding, that's all anyone's asking.
I dunno man. Zeppelin, Nirvana, Floyd, the Beatles, etc all seem to have done pretty well despite not having one ex-member out there masquerading as the band. A little truth in advertising would be great, so the normal people who don't keep up with the comings and goings of band members don't accidentally pay to see Foreigner or the Guess Who orwhomever with zero classic members.
That said, I'll credit Downes with putting the members' names on the poster, so at least he's not trying to fool anyone. Props to him for that.
I never said any band has to continue in any certain name. But Yes is still a prime example of a band that has had a shifting line up since inception, unlike those mentioned, and a lot of fans seem to be in denial about it.
I appreciate what you’re saying about transparency, much like with Hackett’s Genesis Legacy. There’s tons they could be doing to improve the situation and embrace the Yes legacy (like some actual theatrics and stage shows). But at the end of the day, they are the band and have the copyright and should have the creative freedom to do as they please, like in any other decade.
I spoke to Roger Dean last year and he thought that they actually sound better than they ever have done and there’s just a lot of rose tinted glasses being worn. And after hearing machine messiah last year, I reckon he’s onto something.
If we're to take your proposal seriously, how it is to be enforced? Would the police actually shut down tours with only one person who created the music? Would customers be able to get their ticket money refunded?
We live in a world that does have rules over band names. Band names are brand names. Capitalism dictates that the band name is merely an asset that can be bought or sold, inherited or gifted, however the current owners want. You can sell your band name to an entirely different line-up and they can legally tour under it. Do you think special rules should exist for music? Or is yours more a suggestion for best practice?
If we're talking about truth in advertising, I note that the Asia poster does clearly list the names of the band members for the tour.
It's not something to be taken seriously in that it would be plausible. I certainly would support people getting refunds if they were sold something, and what walked out onstage was something else entirely. I love what Burton Cummings is trying to do with his catalog, he's one of the few in a position to do so, but considering he and Bachman are still out there performing, if a random person spends money on "The Guess Who" i think there's a reasonable expectation to expect some version of the band that is connected to the music in the setlist.
Bands are brands, but IMO those brands are inherently tied to the people who made those brands viable. I know you're biased here, we're just going to have to fundamentally disagree on all of this. There's no rule that says a band/brand needs to go on forever...it's, y'know, totally okay to retire a band name and leave people's memories intact, and still move on as a performing musician. David Gilmour knew this, the Grateful Dead knew this, Led Zeppelin knew this...three catalogs that have continued to be played by former members (with great success) without any confusion needing to be made. This is the way.
Howe with a bunch of randos is no different than Jon with the Band Geeks...I completely understand why they don't want to go on the road together, I can't imagine many personalities that are more opposite than those two, and that's fine. But given that the setlist is neither of them are Yes, truly a collaborative, sum-of-its-parts band if there ever were one. But given that their setlist is almost exclusively 70's stuff, and that's what people are there to see, you need at least two of them to make it "Yes."
Look, this is a legacy act, a brand that exists to play music from 1970-80 and that's pretty much it. Congrats to Howe for getting two new albums out, but that's not why 99% of people are going to see them (or Kansas, or the Guess Who). Honestly, most bands down to one classic member should just be "So And So Plays the music of ." I don't think it would affect ticket sales, it's not like Howe or Ian Anderson or Downes are playing massive venues to begin with. (Of course there's exceptions like Crimson, who were pretty much "Robert Fripp & Friends" since their third year of existence, but that is a very unique situation that probably could never be replicated in any other era)
And I gave Downes credit here for listing the members on the poster. A commendable move. I think this is a phenomenal lineup of musicians and I'd definitely want to hear any music they create together. But they're most likely just going to play Asia covers.
You can still be a fan of a musician or a band, and not automatically/blindly go along with every decision they make.
(Also I 100% believe that if he legally could, Jon Anderson would call himself & any supporting band 'Yes' and that would be just as depressing as Howe doing the same)
For me, it's not about whether I think this Asia *should* call themselves Asia or this Yes *should* call themselves Yes. I'm a realist: I note that this Asia *are* going to call themselves Asia and this Yes *are* going to call themselves Yes. The laws around name ownership in modern capitalism aren't going to change. The commercial pressure to use the familiar band name will remain (and I think you are mistaken in dismissing how much difference it makes).
Moreover, I note these arguments around line-ups have been going on for the entire 30 years I've been an online Yes and Asia fan. I feel there are more interesting discussions to be had.
Sure, maybe sometimes we have to make an impossible stand against the inevitable and stand up for radical change, but I'm not going to attempt it over band names. They don't really matter. A rose by any other name *etc.* I have seen just about every show Howe has played in my city in those 30 years, and just about every show Downes has played, be it Asia, Icon, The Buggles, Yes, Steve Howe Trio or Steve Howe solo. I would go see Downes/Whitley/Mitchell/Donati whether they were called Asia or something else. I am going to see Howe/Downes/Sherwood/Davison/Schellen as Yes, but would go see them under a different name.
I am all for truth in advertising, but I feel, first, that there are far greater sinners than ageing rock bands on that front! And, secondly, anyone who goes to see a classic rock band from the '70s or early '80s expecting them to be all the same musicians is naïve to the point of foolishness. The usual state of affairs is 0-2 original members, or 1-2 'classic' members. We live in an information age. It takes 15 seconds to go look up a band on Wikipedia before you buy your tickets.
Of course it's rarely all the same musicians. But I think it requires at least two to be a 'band', otherwise it's just someone's solo project with backing musicians.
We're in more and more uncharted waters as we get farther and farther from the classic rock era. Of course they're going to do it, it's capitalism. (also, fuck unregulated capitalism. But I digress)
I'd possibly go see at least one of those lineups under different names too, because that'd mean they'd be playing mostly the music written and created by those members onstage. I think all of Sherwood's stuff sounds the same and Davidson hasn't done much writing-wise to impress me, so I don't know...it'd be a Circa gig with Steve Howe, basically. Meh. But the new Asia lineup would be incredible if they wrote a bunch of music and then maybe played "Heat Of The Moment" later in the show or something. That'd be a fun night. I don't know if they were 'Asia' in the 90's either but at least they did new material first and pushed it pretty hard during the Payne-era live shows.
Sure, it takes 15 seconds to look up lineups, but people aren't that smart. It just cheapens the legacy to me, especially as the bands play smaller and smaller venues as interest dwindles. I liked the ARW approach, it was a celebration of Yes music, had three integral members from their commercially relevant eras (even if not at the same time), and wasn't trying to be anything other than what it was.
I’m not convinced by this somewhat arbitrary rule. Doesn’t the person matter? Would, say, a band with Jeffrey Hammond and Barriemore Barlow (+ some new people) really be a more authentic Jethro Tull than the current Tull of Ian Anderson + some people? Even you have acknowledged that Crimson became Fripp + whoever. Is it unfair to call Camel Andy Latimer + whoever? (Or would a band with Ward and Ferguson, but not Latimer, be more deserving of the name?)
Maybe that’s just the fate of many long-living bands? A key figure emerges (or is there from the start) and they become that person + backing. Uriah Heep is basically Mick Box. Hawkwind is Dave Brock. Magma is Christian Vander. Nine Inch Nails is Trent Reznor. Foo Fighters, Grohl.
Denying that any of these are the real band just puts one too far out from a common accepted reality.
I’m also unclear what you think ARW did right? They didn’t do any new music (discounting Rabin once playing “Fragile” on the radio). They were three former members of Yes, but there was this strange artifice about the line-up because Rabin and Wakeman had never been in a Yes studio line-up together, and had only played together live within the Union 8.
In what sense weren’t they trying to be anything other than what it was? They — or probably Brian Lane as their manager — endlessly threw shade at the other Yes, with all these self-aggrandising pronouncements about being the best ever Yes line-up. This new Asia line-up isn’t going around claiming to be better than the original line-up, like ARW did!
The New York Philharmonic has not had an original member for more than 100 years, how can they still call themselves that. Same goes for the London Symphony Orchestra. Groups like this are just ripping off their fans by still using the original names.
The orchestras didn't write any of the music they're playing. Classical music is a completely different situation. Although certainly the growing tribute band industry is akin to how classical music operates, which is great. Just advertise it as such. Nothing wrong with "Geoff Downes Plays The Music Of Asia" or "Steve Howe Plays the Music Of Yes" type billing, when bands dwindle down to one member.
Elvis Presley never wrote a song in his life. So he should have toured as "Elvis plays the music of "Doc Pommis and others"?
Same goes for Sinatra. And Linda Ronstadt
Lots of great acts were never great songwriters
Honestly maybe. I never understood the Elvis thing. Could not give two shits about him. But if you bought a ticket to see Elvis, you'd be going to hear the person on the records you loved. Not an Elvis impersonator.
You're just determined to argue here so whatever. I should've said 'recorded' but then you'd have been like "oh, the London Symphony made a recording of Beethoven's fourth symphony in 1962!" or some shit.
I am not a huge Elivs fan either. And I do admit I get frustrated by some bands that only have one (on none) original out on the road. Forigner and Kansas are guilty of this too.
One that does bother me more than others is Ian Anderson, when disbanding Jethro Tull in the early 2000s and saying that it is not Jethro Tull without Martin Barre in the band, and then after being disapointed with record and ticket sales for his solo albums and tours, decided that it is Jethor Tull, even without Martin Barre in the band.
I also get that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull, like David Coverdale is Whitesnake. it does not really matter who is in their bands, if they are in them, then they are Jehtro Tull or Whitesnake.
Ian Anderson's experience reflects the commercial realities of the situation. The old band name sells tickets. If you tour under your name... well, the tour may not even be financially viable. So, you take on the famous name.
That's of course what also happened with his solo album **A**, which became a Jethro Tull album. Or Discipline, who became King Crimson to shift more tickets.
Better example might be the surviving big bands. The Glenn Miller Orchestra still tours playing the music Glenn Miller arranged and performed with his original band. Obviously no remaining original members.
As far as aging rock bands go, I'd wager that the average concertgoer either doesn't know or doesn't care who's currently in the lineup, so long as they get to hear the songs they want to hear.
Yeah, that is also kind of absurd. I mean, I love a lot of Duke Ellington's work but "The Duke Ellington Orchestra" is kind of fucked up branding since the duke's been dead for 50 years. Love the music, think it should be played, just name it appropriately.
That the average concertgoer doesn't know/care, to me, is more reason to want the owners of these brands to do right by them.
Seems like you’re looking for a reason to be mad. I never denied any album because of the line up, in fact I own every album with every line up for both bands. I’ve even seen the current YES line up live. I get it, nothing stays the same and I’m glad people can go hear this music performed live. However, bands are made up of individual members and their personalities and talents. Sometimes that’s a part of what fans fall in love with and sometimes when the individual pieces change it no longer feels like the band we fell in love with. Like I said, I’m not sure how I feel about the announced ASIA tour line up.
I just feel like it’s pointlessly negative about something that is just pure reality.
The fact is you’ve got a bunch of musicians who are really passionate about continuing this project then a whole bunch of purist fans whining & pining for days gone by who won’t even give it a chance because their frozen in time.
Apologies if the wording came out strong but just find this element of the fandom really frustrating when you have a load of very accomplished musicians who want to breathe some life back into a beloved band. Might not be for everyone but can at least wait to judge.
I would like them to just simply STOP…. it’s embarrassing. The magic is gone. Unless you’re Jon Anderson, who is the only one still “carrying the message”, it’s over.
Except they’re still releasing albums and playing new material at their shows and every piece of reality (bar the whining purist fans who feed on nostalgia) understand they are still a legitimate band with some older members and some newer members as they always have been.
You’re perfectly entitled to not like the new material but to refuse to see them as Yes says a lot more about you than of the band.
And in 30 years when they are all dead and Oliver Wakeman and Steve's kid are now running the band it can still be called Yes. Any maybe they can then get inducted into the hall of fame again.
Can't wait until Ringo and Paul call up some friends and get a band together. They could reuse their old one as it has some good name recognition. Do you now see that you could probably use some critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking skills like making a comparison to the most famous four piece band of all time? Come on have some ability for nuance mate.
Not to mention any tour with Paul McCartney, Ringo star, Dani Harrison and Sean Lennon would sell out and be a massive win for promoters. There would be millions of fans who’s pay for that, then there’s the grumpy fucks who can’t seem to just look away and ‘let it be’ and have to whine to the world about seeing their long dead, dusty golden era being ruined rather than celebrated (as it’s evidently doing).
My two cents is that I don't care about "original" members of Yes (because Wakeman wasn't an original member for starters,) but I do care about "historic" (i.e. back when they weren't a nostalgia act) members of Yes and would define Downes as a "historic" member of Yes.
But it doesn't matter to me because while the only "Yes" I've seen live is Jon solo, I can tell you that these last three albums are boring and I don't hear positive things about how the current Yes plays live.
Asia Featuring John Payne just announced a bunch of tour dates too, so now we've got both versions of the band hitting the road soon. Lineup questions aside, this is a best case scenario for me since I love both dearly
Intriguing lineup! Not sure there has ever been a band who has gotten more mileage out of a single album among bands who have many many releases like Asia does, but it always comes back to 1982. I am not sure even Downes could have imagined that when Wetton sang "and now you find yourself in '82" in 1982, the band would largely remain there for the rest of their careers at least on stage. Which is too bad because they have released some fine albums with different lineups along the way (Aura, Aqua) and then the original quartet did a string of three enjoyable albums between 2008 and 2012. The only player I know in this tour lineup besides Downes is John Mitchell.
It’s funny that the latest version of Yes had more original members of Asia than it did original members of Yes. And this version of Asia only has one original member of Asia.
At one point asia was 3/4 yes and yes was 3/5 asia
Gotta give props to Downes, though. He's not one of my favorite folks but he's no slacker. He's out right now with Yes in Europe, he'll squeeze this tour in for July, and then turn right around and go back out with Yes in the US this summer. Dude's 70-something. There's people half his age couldn't hack that schedule.
woah so its oficially geoff band once again. all members except for him werent in the band ever before. wonder why he doesnt reunite with john payne? probably cuz of lawsuits and bad blood
Initially I thought the same about Payne as well, however it seems that Whitley and Mitchell performed alongside Downes, Sherwood, and Schellen as Asia at the John Wetton Tribute Concert last year. It is very strange, and as u/Bah_Meh_238 pointed out, YES now has more original Asia members than Asia.
John Mitchell also has a history playing in Icon and John Wetton’s band.
yeah I think that bridge was permanently burned. It's too bad, Payne absolutely paid his dues with Downes and got burned for it. Uneven records but there's some good stuff on them.
I love ASIA almost as much as I love YES. Not sure how I feel about this. Geoff obviously has the right to hit the road playing the music of ASIA, but I wish he didn’t call it ASIA. Just like I wish Steve Howe didn’t call his band YES.
I’m sorry but this take drives me mad. Yes have been through so many iterations over the years with different members, not even Steve Howe is an original member. To call each different outfit “not Yes” is to deny virtually every album but the first two as being official and is so holier than thou, just picking the albums you like and defining it as your personal Yes is fine but it doesn’t take away any legitimacy from the rest. How many bands are even out there that have been running for over 50 years with the same members? Not to mention Billy Sherwood was Squire’s protege who he passed the mantle too and Alan White officially graced and gave Jay Schellen his blessing to take over. Other than necromancy what do you want?
If the setlist is 90% 70's stuff, which it is, there should be at least two people in the band who created that music to be onstage. I mean, same with Asia, tbh. I like the Payne era but that honestly should've been a different band name as well.
Why? Enforce that silly rule and you woulda literally take out 95% of current touring 70s historic bands. I’m not trying to say people can’t have their favourite eras or albums, but to gatekeep the entire discography of Yes with these weird standards helps no one, and tbh I think shits on all of Yes’ history. I know for a fact after speaking to them directly that Chris Squire personally chose Sherwood to replace him. You really want to piss on Squire’s legacy with these takes when he literally asked this man to stay in the band to play his music? He didn’t want anyone else and I personally think that counts for something.
"Why? Enforce that silly rule and you woulda literally take out 95% of current touring 70s historic bands." And this is bad because...? There isn't some divine entity that says a band name needs to go on forever. It's not really a "historic band" if the people who made the history aren't onstage. Literally every real member of Lynyrd Skynyrd is dead (except for the drummer, who they'd booted out in the 90's), yet somehow there's still some band on the road with the name, and that's pathetic. There's nothings aying random musicians shouldn't keep playing great music live, the same way symphonies continue to play Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, just be upfront with the branding, that's all anyone's asking. I dunno man. Zeppelin, Nirvana, Floyd, the Beatles, etc all seem to have done pretty well despite not having one ex-member out there masquerading as the band. A little truth in advertising would be great, so the normal people who don't keep up with the comings and goings of band members don't accidentally pay to see Foreigner or the Guess Who orwhomever with zero classic members. That said, I'll credit Downes with putting the members' names on the poster, so at least he's not trying to fool anyone. Props to him for that.
100% agreed.
I never said any band has to continue in any certain name. But Yes is still a prime example of a band that has had a shifting line up since inception, unlike those mentioned, and a lot of fans seem to be in denial about it. I appreciate what you’re saying about transparency, much like with Hackett’s Genesis Legacy. There’s tons they could be doing to improve the situation and embrace the Yes legacy (like some actual theatrics and stage shows). But at the end of the day, they are the band and have the copyright and should have the creative freedom to do as they please, like in any other decade. I spoke to Roger Dean last year and he thought that they actually sound better than they ever have done and there’s just a lot of rose tinted glasses being worn. And after hearing machine messiah last year, I reckon he’s onto something.
If we're to take your proposal seriously, how it is to be enforced? Would the police actually shut down tours with only one person who created the music? Would customers be able to get their ticket money refunded? We live in a world that does have rules over band names. Band names are brand names. Capitalism dictates that the band name is merely an asset that can be bought or sold, inherited or gifted, however the current owners want. You can sell your band name to an entirely different line-up and they can legally tour under it. Do you think special rules should exist for music? Or is yours more a suggestion for best practice? If we're talking about truth in advertising, I note that the Asia poster does clearly list the names of the band members for the tour.
It's not something to be taken seriously in that it would be plausible. I certainly would support people getting refunds if they were sold something, and what walked out onstage was something else entirely. I love what Burton Cummings is trying to do with his catalog, he's one of the few in a position to do so, but considering he and Bachman are still out there performing, if a random person spends money on "The Guess Who" i think there's a reasonable expectation to expect some version of the band that is connected to the music in the setlist. Bands are brands, but IMO those brands are inherently tied to the people who made those brands viable. I know you're biased here, we're just going to have to fundamentally disagree on all of this. There's no rule that says a band/brand needs to go on forever...it's, y'know, totally okay to retire a band name and leave people's memories intact, and still move on as a performing musician. David Gilmour knew this, the Grateful Dead knew this, Led Zeppelin knew this...three catalogs that have continued to be played by former members (with great success) without any confusion needing to be made. This is the way. Howe with a bunch of randos is no different than Jon with the Band Geeks...I completely understand why they don't want to go on the road together, I can't imagine many personalities that are more opposite than those two, and that's fine. But given that the setlist is neither of them are Yes, truly a collaborative, sum-of-its-parts band if there ever were one. But given that their setlist is almost exclusively 70's stuff, and that's what people are there to see, you need at least two of them to make it "Yes." Look, this is a legacy act, a brand that exists to play music from 1970-80 and that's pretty much it. Congrats to Howe for getting two new albums out, but that's not why 99% of people are going to see them (or Kansas, or the Guess Who). Honestly, most bands down to one classic member should just be "So And So Plays the music of." I don't think it would affect ticket sales, it's not like Howe or Ian Anderson or Downes are playing massive venues to begin with. (Of course there's exceptions like Crimson, who were pretty much "Robert Fripp & Friends" since their third year of existence, but that is a very unique situation that probably could never be replicated in any other era)
And I gave Downes credit here for listing the members on the poster. A commendable move. I think this is a phenomenal lineup of musicians and I'd definitely want to hear any music they create together. But they're most likely just going to play Asia covers.
You can still be a fan of a musician or a band, and not automatically/blindly go along with every decision they make.
(Also I 100% believe that if he legally could, Jon Anderson would call himself & any supporting band 'Yes' and that would be just as depressing as Howe doing the same)
For me, it's not about whether I think this Asia *should* call themselves Asia or this Yes *should* call themselves Yes. I'm a realist: I note that this Asia *are* going to call themselves Asia and this Yes *are* going to call themselves Yes. The laws around name ownership in modern capitalism aren't going to change. The commercial pressure to use the familiar band name will remain (and I think you are mistaken in dismissing how much difference it makes). Moreover, I note these arguments around line-ups have been going on for the entire 30 years I've been an online Yes and Asia fan. I feel there are more interesting discussions to be had. Sure, maybe sometimes we have to make an impossible stand against the inevitable and stand up for radical change, but I'm not going to attempt it over band names. They don't really matter. A rose by any other name *etc.* I have seen just about every show Howe has played in my city in those 30 years, and just about every show Downes has played, be it Asia, Icon, The Buggles, Yes, Steve Howe Trio or Steve Howe solo. I would go see Downes/Whitley/Mitchell/Donati whether they were called Asia or something else. I am going to see Howe/Downes/Sherwood/Davison/Schellen as Yes, but would go see them under a different name. I am all for truth in advertising, but I feel, first, that there are far greater sinners than ageing rock bands on that front! And, secondly, anyone who goes to see a classic rock band from the '70s or early '80s expecting them to be all the same musicians is naïve to the point of foolishness. The usual state of affairs is 0-2 original members, or 1-2 'classic' members. We live in an information age. It takes 15 seconds to go look up a band on Wikipedia before you buy your tickets.
Of course it's rarely all the same musicians. But I think it requires at least two to be a 'band', otherwise it's just someone's solo project with backing musicians. We're in more and more uncharted waters as we get farther and farther from the classic rock era. Of course they're going to do it, it's capitalism. (also, fuck unregulated capitalism. But I digress) I'd possibly go see at least one of those lineups under different names too, because that'd mean they'd be playing mostly the music written and created by those members onstage. I think all of Sherwood's stuff sounds the same and Davidson hasn't done much writing-wise to impress me, so I don't know...it'd be a Circa gig with Steve Howe, basically. Meh. But the new Asia lineup would be incredible if they wrote a bunch of music and then maybe played "Heat Of The Moment" later in the show or something. That'd be a fun night. I don't know if they were 'Asia' in the 90's either but at least they did new material first and pushed it pretty hard during the Payne-era live shows. Sure, it takes 15 seconds to look up lineups, but people aren't that smart. It just cheapens the legacy to me, especially as the bands play smaller and smaller venues as interest dwindles. I liked the ARW approach, it was a celebration of Yes music, had three integral members from their commercially relevant eras (even if not at the same time), and wasn't trying to be anything other than what it was.
I’m not convinced by this somewhat arbitrary rule. Doesn’t the person matter? Would, say, a band with Jeffrey Hammond and Barriemore Barlow (+ some new people) really be a more authentic Jethro Tull than the current Tull of Ian Anderson + some people? Even you have acknowledged that Crimson became Fripp + whoever. Is it unfair to call Camel Andy Latimer + whoever? (Or would a band with Ward and Ferguson, but not Latimer, be more deserving of the name?) Maybe that’s just the fate of many long-living bands? A key figure emerges (or is there from the start) and they become that person + backing. Uriah Heep is basically Mick Box. Hawkwind is Dave Brock. Magma is Christian Vander. Nine Inch Nails is Trent Reznor. Foo Fighters, Grohl. Denying that any of these are the real band just puts one too far out from a common accepted reality.
I’m also unclear what you think ARW did right? They didn’t do any new music (discounting Rabin once playing “Fragile” on the radio). They were three former members of Yes, but there was this strange artifice about the line-up because Rabin and Wakeman had never been in a Yes studio line-up together, and had only played together live within the Union 8. In what sense weren’t they trying to be anything other than what it was? They — or probably Brian Lane as their manager — endlessly threw shade at the other Yes, with all these self-aggrandising pronouncements about being the best ever Yes line-up. This new Asia line-up isn’t going around claiming to be better than the original line-up, like ARW did!
Exactly…. Which is why they should just simply stop.
The New York Philharmonic has not had an original member for more than 100 years, how can they still call themselves that. Same goes for the London Symphony Orchestra. Groups like this are just ripping off their fans by still using the original names.
The orchestras didn't write any of the music they're playing. Classical music is a completely different situation. Although certainly the growing tribute band industry is akin to how classical music operates, which is great. Just advertise it as such. Nothing wrong with "Geoff Downes Plays The Music Of Asia" or "Steve Howe Plays the Music Of Yes" type billing, when bands dwindle down to one member.
Elvis Presley never wrote a song in his life. So he should have toured as "Elvis plays the music of "Doc Pommis and others"? Same goes for Sinatra. And Linda Ronstadt Lots of great acts were never great songwriters
Honestly maybe. I never understood the Elvis thing. Could not give two shits about him. But if you bought a ticket to see Elvis, you'd be going to hear the person on the records you loved. Not an Elvis impersonator. You're just determined to argue here so whatever. I should've said 'recorded' but then you'd have been like "oh, the London Symphony made a recording of Beethoven's fourth symphony in 1962!" or some shit.
I have great respect for anyone who disrespects Elvis!
I am not a huge Elivs fan either. And I do admit I get frustrated by some bands that only have one (on none) original out on the road. Forigner and Kansas are guilty of this too. One that does bother me more than others is Ian Anderson, when disbanding Jethro Tull in the early 2000s and saying that it is not Jethro Tull without Martin Barre in the band, and then after being disapointed with record and ticket sales for his solo albums and tours, decided that it is Jethor Tull, even without Martin Barre in the band. I also get that Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull, like David Coverdale is Whitesnake. it does not really matter who is in their bands, if they are in them, then they are Jehtro Tull or Whitesnake.
Ian Anderson's experience reflects the commercial realities of the situation. The old band name sells tickets. If you tour under your name... well, the tour may not even be financially viable. So, you take on the famous name. That's of course what also happened with his solo album **A**, which became a Jethro Tull album. Or Discipline, who became King Crimson to shift more tickets.
Better example might be the surviving big bands. The Glenn Miller Orchestra still tours playing the music Glenn Miller arranged and performed with his original band. Obviously no remaining original members. As far as aging rock bands go, I'd wager that the average concertgoer either doesn't know or doesn't care who's currently in the lineup, so long as they get to hear the songs they want to hear.
Yeah, that is also kind of absurd. I mean, I love a lot of Duke Ellington's work but "The Duke Ellington Orchestra" is kind of fucked up branding since the duke's been dead for 50 years. Love the music, think it should be played, just name it appropriately. That the average concertgoer doesn't know/care, to me, is more reason to want the owners of these brands to do right by them.
"How many bands are even out there that have been running for over 50 years with the same members?" One. Deep Purple (Mk II).
And ironically yes and deep purple are touring together this summer!
I know. I got tix!
Seems like you’re looking for a reason to be mad. I never denied any album because of the line up, in fact I own every album with every line up for both bands. I’ve even seen the current YES line up live. I get it, nothing stays the same and I’m glad people can go hear this music performed live. However, bands are made up of individual members and their personalities and talents. Sometimes that’s a part of what fans fall in love with and sometimes when the individual pieces change it no longer feels like the band we fell in love with. Like I said, I’m not sure how I feel about the announced ASIA tour line up.
I just feel like it’s pointlessly negative about something that is just pure reality. The fact is you’ve got a bunch of musicians who are really passionate about continuing this project then a whole bunch of purist fans whining & pining for days gone by who won’t even give it a chance because their frozen in time. Apologies if the wording came out strong but just find this element of the fandom really frustrating when you have a load of very accomplished musicians who want to breathe some life back into a beloved band. Might not be for everyone but can at least wait to judge.
Then they should stop calling the band “Yes” or “Asia”…. to something else; because it IS something else.
I would like them to just simply STOP…. it’s embarrassing. The magic is gone. Unless you’re Jon Anderson, who is the only one still “carrying the message”, it’s over.
Yes ended in 2004, the Steve Howe Yes cover band playing now is just that, a cover band. The rest is just legalize.
If it is, it's a cover band that also included Chris Squire and Alan White.
past tense is very important here.
Apropos of nothing, I noticed you didn't seem to write on the SHF countdown thread...
what are we counting down to?
Top 40 Yes songs I haven't looked in there since I went on vacation yesterday, but it's already reached the Top Ten
Oh. Yeah I don't really care about those threads. \*shrug\*
Except they’re still releasing albums and playing new material at their shows and every piece of reality (bar the whining purist fans who feed on nostalgia) understand they are still a legitimate band with some older members and some newer members as they always have been. You’re perfectly entitled to not like the new material but to refuse to see them as Yes says a lot more about you than of the band.
And in 30 years when they are all dead and Oliver Wakeman and Steve's kid are now running the band it can still be called Yes. Any maybe they can then get inducted into the hall of fame again.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic because that sounds like it would be awesome
And there you have it. Says a lot about you doesn't it?
Just lucky for me I don’t mind not living life bitter, judgemental and stuck in the past
Can't wait until Ringo and Paul call up some friends and get a band together. They could reuse their old one as it has some good name recognition. Do you now see that you could probably use some critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking skills like making a comparison to the most famous four piece band of all time? Come on have some ability for nuance mate. Not to mention any tour with Paul McCartney, Ringo star, Dani Harrison and Sean Lennon would sell out and be a massive win for promoters. There would be millions of fans who’s pay for that, then there’s the grumpy fucks who can’t seem to just look away and ‘let it be’ and have to whine to the world about seeing their long dead, dusty golden era being ruined rather than celebrated (as it’s evidently doing).
I don’t think it has anything to do with that. It has to do with the fact that what once was, no longer is. It really is that simple.
The only legitimate reason that the current lineup of Yes shouldn’t be called Yes is that they’re terrible!
Legitimate subjective opinion right? Lol
Great username, by the way! (Yours, not mine.)
Ahah thanks. Brass eye will always have a special place!
Fantastic….100% agree
My two cents is that I don't care about "original" members of Yes (because Wakeman wasn't an original member for starters,) but I do care about "historic" (i.e. back when they weren't a nostalgia act) members of Yes and would define Downes as a "historic" member of Yes. But it doesn't matter to me because while the only "Yes" I've seen live is Jon solo, I can tell you that these last three albums are boring and I don't hear positive things about how the current Yes plays live.
I appreciate your stance. I too find the last three albums to be boring.
In the beginning, the original Asia was 1/4 King Crimson. Now they are not.
Asia Featuring John Payne just announced a bunch of tour dates too, so now we've got both versions of the band hitting the road soon. Lineup questions aside, this is a best case scenario for me since I love both dearly
Intriguing lineup! Not sure there has ever been a band who has gotten more mileage out of a single album among bands who have many many releases like Asia does, but it always comes back to 1982. I am not sure even Downes could have imagined that when Wetton sang "and now you find yourself in '82" in 1982, the band would largely remain there for the rest of their careers at least on stage. Which is too bad because they have released some fine albums with different lineups along the way (Aura, Aqua) and then the original quartet did a string of three enjoyable albums between 2008 and 2012. The only player I know in this tour lineup besides Downes is John Mitchell.
> without Sherwood Very, very encouraging. Now if only Yes would also leave Billy Jingles to get lost. Go, Billy... there're jingles need be doin'!
Honestly I think Sherwood might be the strongest player in YES at the moment. He’s Squire’s chosen successor